So, did you think the Olympic torch was temporarily extinguished in Paris yesterday, as was widely reported? You'd be wrong. As China's foreign ministry tells us today, what really happened was that "the modes of the relay in Paris were temporarily changed to safeguard the [torch's] security and dignity".

Of course, to an extent the foreign ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu is right: the Olympic flame (something separate from the torch) was kept alight at all times during the relay in an enclosed lamp, which is also used to preserve it on planes.

But the tortured syntax tells us something else: China takes a completely different view of the pro-Tibet protests in Paris and London to the UK media, much of which has half-celebrated the chaos.

For example, today's edition of the Beijing-run, English-language China Daily explains on its front page that most Parisians "waved and cheered" at the torch's progress, mentioning the protests as "an insult".

The state-run Xinhua news agency takes a similar line, telling readers that spectators in Paris were "greatly annoyed and angered by Tibetan separatists and their supporters".

"We've come here only to watch the torch relay," a local student called Mark told Xinhua. "What in the world does this have anything to do with us except for annoying us?"

Of course, it's no great insight to find China's media faithfully parroting the official line.

But there is a more important point here: the vast majority of Chinese people agree with the government view, and many are simultaneously angry and baffled when foreigners lecture them about Tibet.

When I was based in Beijing, with another news organisation, it was never particularly hard to find local people who would - privately - castigate their government for, say, rampant corruption and cronyism.

But mention Tibet, or other areas such as Xinjiang, where sections of an ethnically distinct population have agitated for autonomy, and the tone changed. Didn't I know? Tibet had been part of China for centuries. Beijing had liberated its people from feudalism and poverty.

The same point is made (more eloquently) by a Brussels-based Economist correspondent formerly based in Beijing.

Despite feeling "delight" at the disruption to the relay, the journalist (unnamed, as is the Economist way) warns:

If the aim of any pro-democracy or pro-freedom protest is to move hearts and minds in the debate over Chinese behaviour in Tibet, these attacks on the torch are bound to be counter-productive.

I have to agree. I'm not saying the protests should stop - far from it. But there is a risk that they serve only to entrench attitudes.